Re: Mixed schemes

Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com> Mon, 21 November 2016 22:09 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD0A91293F8 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:09:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sendgrid.me
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ligEZ_Qb94By for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:09:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C94C12954D for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:09:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1c8wiX-0001Yd-K0 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 22:05:37 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 22:05:37 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1c8wiX-0001Yd-K0@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <bounces+1568871-208f-ietf-http-wg=w3.org@sendgrid.net>) id 1c8wiL-0001VE-Hy for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 22:05:25 +0000
Received: from o1.7nn.fshared.sendgrid.net ([167.89.55.65]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <bounces+1568871-208f-ietf-http-wg=w3.org@sendgrid.net>) id 1c8wiF-0002H7-Dx for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 22:05:20 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sendgrid.me; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:subject:to:cc:content-type; s=smtpapi; bh=hoATbCsfEVE46OxUV/74lmlpNqU=; b=w1gtmzrBDeOpauYpeG UPiRiodQ4cjgd1kx2JEac1ZzucZ1nBdQr933RxQAQzf1xQsCowWXsz8WscG1FM6+ mFCUU9hoBXiCziW4IZQ4Aj/oczwNzSHuXbfH5nxJ1rwbnC3lDUY20KukSzCzqYR9 dfqWttYkyz8NOifDI6UJosDT4=
Received: by filter0604p1mdw1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0604p1mdw1-12865-58336F70-6F 2016-11-21 22:04:32.936371282 +0000 UTC
Received: from mail-qk0-f182.google.com (mail-qk0-f182.google.com [209.85.220.182]) by ismtpd0003p1iad1.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id Z3mMPffyQHWnqSCybl5IRA for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 22:04:32.872 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qk0-f182.google.com with SMTP id n21so370457362qka.3 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:04:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC03kCauYEeOnR7hy+4/9mRXrOPgFqNVgwO+rmxFxiiMY4P24YQVzsBYPb4Ns4YrHQpE4boUi5mU+9UIiiQ==
X-Received: by 10.55.190.1 with SMTP id o1mr17963445qkf.305.1479765872540; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:04:32 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.12.148.37 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:04:32 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <ED7EED77-4CDA-453B-938E-F98B558FED0F@mnot.net>
References: <CABkgnnWHO3ffdeviYjCEzqao43cUMWGmjmNGxM=OHg2G4SXGwA@mail.gmail.com> <ED7EED77-4CDA-453B-938E-F98B558FED0F@mnot.net>
From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 17:04:32 -0500
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAOdDvNqD4iW8g2y0yYiEBwx6oY-7V_S_D3W+29K5PvtjZogMuw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNqD4iW8g2y0yYiEBwx6oY-7V_S_D3W+29K5PvtjZogMuw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Erik Nygren <erik+ietf@nygren.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0438a42f07f70541d6d784
X-SG-EID: YLWet4rakcOTMHWvPPwWbcsiUJbN1FCn0PHYd/Uujh7fjgvFclWMMMc13w9OVMd6Z+dkM/ooFokhXd Vpo4+TsrMC+z/4FC3HnRRJjQz5uDAIZI2iL9jwZwHvtC6gYR/0KsNsG6KtodQmS19jWHf/KvbVPx4U FTfzN0nwZs/SI3fgKdVEVrWp3KDOLv/DMfmWsUCFqV+fugjYHH4v57V/gUhzXPvMNE1rt6nvjj5pWZ c=
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=167.89.55.65; envelope-from=bounces+1568871-208f-ietf-http-wg=w3.org@sendgrid.net; helo=o1.7nn.fshared.sendgrid.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.106, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.999, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1c8wiF-0002H7-Dx aba9bd6852baeb3556098fb876905aa1
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Mixed schemes
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAOdDvNqD4iW8g2y0yYiEBwx6oY-7V_S_D3W+29K5PvtjZogMuw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32949
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I really think we can do #1, but I won't object to #2.

-P


On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> Personally -- SGTM (including #2).
>
>
> > On 21 Nov. 2016, at 1:29 pm, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Patrick (perhaps indirectly) suggested that we can harness a Firefox bug
> here:
> >
> >  https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/270
> >
> > That is, rather than mention that coalescing between https and http
> > might happen, forbid it instead.
> >
> > I'm fairly sure that this will address the concerns Erik had.  Maybe
> > too effectively; objections like this would be good to hear.
> >
> > I didn't add any text here about coalescing two http:// origins.  I
> > don't want to close this issue until we resolve that too.  Should we:
> >
> > 1. allow coalescing of two http:// origins by default
> > 2. forbid coalescing of two http:// origins without an explicit signal
> >
> > My preference is for option 2.
> >
> > Let's be perfectly clear, there's no inherent protocol reason why we
> > can't coalesce.  But this stems from an (over)abundance of caution.
> > We can develop explicit opt-in signals regarding coalescing if it came
> > to that ... #include <ORIGIN frame discussions>.
> >
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>